Wage & Hour News
You Win Some, You Lose Some: But Plaintiff Wants to Keep Winning
Los Angeles, CA: In a decision that will be of interest to any California resident intent on bringing individual wage and hour claims against an employer in addition to claims under The Private Attorneys General Act of California (PAGA), a three-judge appellate panel recently determined that any plaintiff having settled individual claims is barred from continuing with a claim under PAGA.
From the Ashes of a California Wage and Hour Class Action, Another Appears
San Diego, CA: A California wage and hour lawsuit that was originally put forward as a class action has been amended to allow class participants the opportunity to pursue their wage and hour claims individually. To that end, all class claims associated with the plaintiffs’ fourth amended complaint have been stricken, following approval by US Magistrate Judge Elizabeth D. Laporte earlier this month.
The original wage and hour complaint against defendant CSX Intermodal Terminals Inc. (CSX) accused the company of incorrectly classifying drivers as independent contractors when they were rightly employees of the firm, or so the plaintiffs alleged. As a result, plaintiffs allege they were denied meal and rest breaks, denied pay that reflected proper minimum wage levels, denied reimbursement for work-related expenses including insurance costs, fuel and maintenance, and together with other rights guaranteed to employees under California employment law.
CSX, according to Court documents, is a provider of freight transport via trucks as well as rail. Drivers were hired to operate trucks that pulled CSX trailers laden with freight between rail yards and clients of CSX.
The wage and hour lawsuit is Valadez, et al. v. CSX Intermodal Terminals Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-05433. As suggested above the lawsuit was originally proposed as a class action until plaintiffs decided to amend their suit, with the support of the Court.
At the same time, an additional wage and hour lawsuit has been filed (Goyal, et al., v. CSX Intermodal Terminals Inc., Case No. 4:17-cv-06081), alleging similar claims to that of Valadez, et al v. CSX. According to Law360 (10/27/17), the Goyal complaint has been filed on behalf of some 30 drivers with another 25 expected to be added in the coming weeks. It was reported that Goyal et al drivers were originally members of the Valadez class, although none participated as named plaintiffs.
Goyal et al has been put forward itself as a proposed class action with about 90 class participants expected.
The six named drivers in Valadez v. CSX abandoned all of their original class claims against the defendant, with one exception: claim for penalties under the California Private Attorneys General Act, which seeks relief on behalf of employees who were allegedly harmed by CSX.
Amongst claims made against CSX by Goyal et al is an assertion of a pre-existing agreement between CSX and drivers stipulating that drivers had the right to refuse assignments.
The Goyal et al lawsuit, however, claims that drivers who attempted to refuse assignments did not receive alternate assignments. Some drivers, the lawsuit asserts, were not offered replacement assignments for two, or more working days.
On occasion, a driver who rejected a CSX assignment would be fired by the company, or so it is alleged.
According to the wage and hour lawyer for the plaintiffs, the defendant moved to terminate the contracts of all affected drivers in September of last year, and now reportedly uses a third-party for driving services originally undertaken by both the Valadez and Goyal drivers.
Both cases were filed in US District Court for the Northern District of California.
California Wage & Hour Lawsuit Settles for $5 Million, but Some Remain Unhappy
San Francisco Bay, CA: A California wage and hour lawsuit alleging exotic dancers toiling in the Bay area were underpaid, has been settled after a US District Court Judge earlier this month granted her approval to the $5 million settlement.
However, the settlement was not without its detractors, including some members of the class who formally objected to the settlement, characterizing it as ‘a pittance.’
The wage & hour lawsuit is Roe et al. v. SFBSC Management LLC et al., Case No. 14-cv-03616, in the US District Court for the Northern District of California.
The lawsuit was launched as a putative class action in August, 2014 by a collective of dancers alleging wage and hour violations against SFBSC Management LLC, an enterprise managing strip clubs in the Bay area of San Francisco. Plaintiffs accuse SFBSC of improperly classifying dancers as independent contractors, thus cheating them out of fair wages and overtime that would otherwise be their due as bone fide employees of SFBSC.
One of the class representatives in the wage & hour lawsuit appeared before US Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler to express her concern with the settlement.
“I’m here today in part because I do think [the settlement is] unfair to dancers who don’t know their options, and I’m one of the few who does, and I think it’s a responsibility of people with more privilege to speak up,” said dancer Poohrawn Mehraban, who identified herself as a student at UC Berkeley and a stripper for about four years. “We’re an easily exploited demographic. Most of us are young and largely uneducated…”
Mehraban, who filed her own lawsuit September 12 with the help of her wage & hour lawyer, appeared before Beeler two days later, on September 14.
“My largest concern is that this would set precedent for dancers who don’t bring cases to court, and for the community, this will just confirm that the rumors are true: the law is never on your side.”
Mehraban also suggested that prior to becoming involved in the wage & hour lawsuit, she had heard from other dancers having brought wage & hour claims, and had been told that “it wasn’t worth it.”
As noted above, two days prior to her appearance before Magistrate Beeler, Mehraban filed her own lawsuit against Gold Club SF LLC, alleging that she had been let go from her job due to her participation in the putative class action. That case is Mehraban v. Gold Club SF LLC, Case No. 3:17-cv-05288, in the US District Court for the Northern District of California.
The proposed settlement, according to Mehraban’s wage and hour lawyer, contains various provisions and would also provide class participants with up to $800 in relief.
However attorney Shannon Liss-Riordan of Lichten & Liss-Riordan PC, characterized the settlement, on behalf of Mehraban and other objectors to the settlement, as inadequate – estimating dancers at two, of the nine clubs named in the suit should be entitled to $40 million in damages, thus damages for the entire proposed class would likely exceed $100 million.
The objectors also noted that some dancers have historically received larger payouts after their claims were individually arbitrated (ironically, SFBSC had put forward a motion to compel arbitration, but the motion was denied on grounds of unconscionability). Objectors also cited multiple deals in various other jurisdictions that succeeded in resolutions that saw class members who were also exotic dancers receive upwards of $17,000 each in restitution.
Undaunted by the objectors’ positions, Beeler approved the $5 million wage & hour settlement, for which the parties involved filed motions for preliminary approval this past March. The settlement provides up to $2 million in cash payments for hours worked by 4,681 dancers, $1 million for an alternate “dance fee payment” compensation program that pays a per-performance cost, and fees for plaintiffs’ attorneys that are to be capped at $1 million.
As part of the settlement, the defendants agreed to change their business practices so that dancers can opt to be either employees or independent professional entertainers, according to their own choosing. Dancers who opt in to the putative class action agree to release any wage and hour claims brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The defendants in two more recent cases were added, back in March, when the plaintiffs in the putative class action wage & hour lawsuit amended their complaint to include the nightclubs named in the most recent lawsuits.
Those cases, as reported by Law 360 (09/14/17) are Hughes v. S.A.W. Entertainment Ltd., Case No. 3:16-cv-03371, and Pera et al. v. Saw Entertainment Ltd., Case No. 3:17-cv-00138, in the US District Court for the Northern District of California.
Apple Inc. Ordered to Pay $2 Million to Settle Lawsuit over Pay, Meal and Rest Periods
San Diego, CA: A lawsuit that appeared to fly under the radar last year in spite of involving what is considered one of the largest corporations in the world, resulted in an order for Apple Inc. to pay $2 million to class participants in a class action lawsuit alleging missed meal breaks, rest periods and failure to pay employees in a timely manner. Meal breaks and rest periods are mandated by California law as a means to ensure employees are well rested and nourished, and not overcome by working too many hours at a time without pause for food and rest, potentially leading to an unsafe situation. The California Division of Labor Enforcement is one such branch of the California legislative authority mandating employers, small and large, to look out for the rights, and wellbeing of their employees.
According to an online report by CNN tech (12/15/16), the lawsuit was filed in 2011 by four individuals employed by Apple in San Diego.
Plaintiffs were identified as Joseph Lane Carco, Ramsey Hawkins, Ryan Goldman and Brandon Felczer, the latter serving as the lead plaintiff in what evolved to a class action lawsuit when the case was granted class certification in 2013 (Felczer et al v. Apple Inc., Case No. 37-2011-00102593, in the Superior Court of the State of California, San Diego).
The plaintiffs asserted that Apple denied them of their rights as entrenched in California labor law. Those statutes require that employers provide hourly workers a 30 minute meal period when toiling more than five hours a day. Employers are also required to provide 10 minute rest breaks for every four hours worked.
Plaintiffs asserted that Apple dropped the ball on this, although CNN tech noted that Apple made changes to their scheduling policy in 2012 – the year after the lawsuit was initially brought, and the year before the lawsuit was certified as a class action.
According to the Court record associated with the lawsuit, Apple also stood accused of “failure to furnish accurate itemized wage statements, and failure to timely pay wages on the end of employment,” amongst other allegations.
California observes strict guidelines as to when employees are to receive their final wages, according to provisions in California Labor Code Sections 201, 201.5, 202, 208, and 227.3 amongst others applicable to various situations.
To the allegation of failure to timely pay wages at the end of employment, Court documents show that lead plaintiff Felczer ended his employment with Apple on November 23, 2011. Felczer, according to documents, provided more than 72 hours advance notice as to when he intended to end his association with the employer. It should be noted that in California, there is no requirement for an employee to provide advance notice of intent to leave a job.
The lawsuit noted that Felczer was provided with his final check two days after ending his employment, with said check provided November 25, 2011. California Labor Code Section 202 requires that an employee who gives at least 72 hours’ notice and leaves on the day noted in his resignation, must receive all final wages on that day.
Four days after that, on November 29, Apple was accused of paying Felczer an inadequate amount of waiting time penalties.
There were other examples of alleged delays over issuing final wages. Plaintiff Carco, according to Court documents, resigned from Apple’s employ on, or about June 20, 2008. Court documents associated with the lawsuit suggest Carco did not receive his final paycheck until July 1 of that year. California Labor Code Section 202 stipulates that employees who don’t give advance notice must receive their final wages within 72 hours.
Plaintiff Goldman’s employment was terminated by Apple on January 11, 2011. The lawsuit asserts Goldman’s final check was not drafted until February 4, 2011 and not received by the plaintiff until February 7 of that year. According to California Labor Code Sections 201 and 227.3, “an employee who is discharged must be paid all of his or her wages, including accrued vacation, immediately at the time of termination.”
CNN tech reported that Apple did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
The Division of Occupational Safety and Health for the State of California is but one example of State governance with a mandate to keep employees safe, and to maintain a healthy work environment that doesn’t put the employee at undue risk under Title Eight of the California Code of Regulations.
However, the arm of governance which enforces areas such as meal breaks and rest periods falls under the mandate of the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (DLSE), under the umbrella of the Office of the California Labor Commissioner. To that end, DLSE regulations cover areas of workplace law that are not site-specific, such as access to rest periods and meal breaks, and wage and hour issues.
The lawsuit was centered on issues within the jurisdiction of DLSE.
California Wage & Hour Lawsuit Settles for $3.5 Million
Los Angeles, CA: A previously-negotiated California wage & hour settlement worth $3.5 million between clothier Ann Inc. and over 8,000 participants in a class action lawsuit was granted final approval earlier this month by a California Superior Court judge. The approval brings an end to litigation asserting unpaid wages and missed meal breaks.
Ann Inc. was named in the wage and hour lawsuit along with AnnTaylor Retail Inc. Ann Taylor is a well-known clothier that became the subject of litigation in December, 2015 when named plaintiff Steve Linares accused the defendants of various wage and hour violations under California wage & hour laws. Alleged violations included shorting workers on overtime, failure to meet minimum wage requirements, failures to provide rest and meal breaks, and failure to pay final wages in a timely fashion when an employee was terminated from their job.
Linares was employed at a Los Angeles Ann Taylor Factory store from October 2011 through October, 2013 – a period of two years. The retail location where Linares was based is one of about 80 Ann Taylor retail locations throughout the State of California, according to Court records. The clothing retailer also has a national presence.
The $3.5 million settlement was afforded preliminary approval this past March by Los Angeles Superior Court Judge John Shepard Wiley. At the time, Judge Wiley noted that with over 8,150 class members the average individual payout after legal fees and expenses would be about $300 – but the judge indicated at the time that the amount was fair.
He echoed those comments earlier this month when granting the wage & hour settlement final approval. Judge Wiley, however, did have questions about requests for enhanced payments for lead plaintiff Linares and another class representative, identified as Jeanette Barlow. The requests were made in respect to work the two plaintiffs claimed to have performed on the file in concert with the primary wage & hour lawyer and other members of the legal team.
Judge Wiley took issue with the amounts requested: $10,000 and $7,500 respectively, indicating that neither declaration from Linares or Barlow with regard to their work on the file adequately informed the Court as to how Linares and Barlow were impacted by their involvement in the litigation. The judge characterized the declarations as ‘bare-bones’ with each containing similar language and identical footnotes and, “I didn’t get any sense of genuine personal commitment or actual risk that either class rep encountered,” he said in his ruling.
In the end, Judge Wiley approved reduced payments: Linares and Barlow will receive $5,000 each. “These were boilerplate, lawyer-drafted declarations. That’s one of the problems,” the judge said. “The other problem is I also don’t see anything extraordinary that would justify an extra award to them.”
The California wage & hour lawsuit is Steven Linares v. Ann Inc. et al., Case No. BC605635, in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles.
California Wage and Hour Class Action Seeks Nearly $19 Million
San Francisco, CA: A proposed wage and hour class action lawsuit filed near the beginning of the year in California state court is seeking nearly $19 million in unpaid wages and other damages from defendant T-Mobile.
The lead plaintiff in the proposed class action is identified as Jesse Black, a field technician who alleges missed meal breaks and rest periods, as well as unpaid overtime.
However one of the most compelling aspects of Black’s wage and hour lawsuit is a company-wide policy alleged to have been observed by T-Mobile of requiring technicians to participate in an “on call” rotation for a week at a time, around the clock. For that, technicians were paid a flat rate of $22.47 per day, as well as full hourly pay for any hours they spent responding to a service call as needed.
The problem, Black indicated in his complaint through his wage and hour lawyer, is that a technician’s free time during those weeks on standby was severely restricted, given that technicians were required to drop everything and respond to a service call at a moment’s notice. In effect, the technician was at his employer’s beck and call around the clock for a week at a time and paid a daily, flat-rate stipend of $22.47. Black holds that such an arrangement effectively pushed the technicians affected into an off-the-clock work situation, with the daily flat rate effectively pushing the technicians below the minimum wage threshold considering the number of hours – totaling 168 per week – that technicians were on call.
The aforementioned off-the-clock work for which plaintiff Black alleges technicians were not paid, conversely impacted computation for overtime pay according to provisions entrenched in California law.
Black is primarily hoping to represent any hourly-paid field technician or ‘functional equivalent’ who worked for T-Mobile in the State of California within the past four years. He seeks $18.2 million in unpaid wages with regard to alleged off-the-clock work, wages that fell below the minimum standard and unpaid overtime wages. He also seeks nearly $1 million above that figure representing missed meal and rest periods.
Black filed his California wage and hour lawsuit January 31 in state court in California. T-Mobile has since moved to have the lawsuit removed to federal court but would keep the lawsuit in California, according to court documents.
The wage and hour lawsuit is Black v. T-Mobile USA Inc., Case No. 3:17-cv-04151, in the US District Court for the Northern District of California.
Eight-Year Wage and Hour Litigation Likely Looking at $21 Million Settlement
Los Angeles, CA: A California wage and hour class action that has been on the books since 2009 is finally nearing its conclusion, following release of details involving a mediated settlement worth $21 million. The plaintiffs, employees of US Security Associates Inc. (USSA), last week urged a federal court in the Golden State to grant preliminary approval to the deal.
The wage and hour lawsuit is over allegations of missed meal breaks and rest periods, as well as other violations to both federal and state employment laws.
It was in 2009 that plaintiff Muhammed Abdullah – named as the lead plaintiff in the wage and hour lawsuit – first brought forward allegations that USSA failed to provide to security guards in their employ meal breaks and rest periods. It was also alleged, when the lawsuit was launched in January of that year with the aid of Abdullah’s wage and hour lawyer, that the defendant compelled the guards to undertake purchases of certain items, failed to pay the guards missed vacation time, and failed to pay their employees upon job termination, amongst other allegations.
District court in California granted Abdullah’s action class certification two years later in 2011. USSA appealed the certification to the Ninth Circuit. Two years after that, in September of 2013 the Ninth Circuit upheld the lower court’s ruling.
Undaunted, the defendant took their opposition towards the wage and hour lawsuit to the US Supreme Court with a petition for writ of certiorari. However the Supreme Court declined, leaving the Ninth Circuit with the last word.
Meanwhile, while all this was going on other plaintiffs with similar claims came forward with their own putative class actions. To that end, plaintiffs Juan-Leal Cardenas (May, 2013) and Robert Stone (January 2015) each filed two other putative class action wage and hour lawsuits. There were also claims filed under the Private Attorney’s General Act (PAGA).
By April of 2015, both of the latter cases were associated to the Abdullah wage and hour lawsuit.
The various parties went through mediation, and this past December both sides filed a notice indicating a settlement had been reached. Details were not revealed until now.
Under terms of the agreement upwards of 17,000 class members would be in line to receive an average of $1,235 each, before deductions. The opt-out, non-reversionary settlement would resolve all claims brought in the Abdullah action and the wage PAGA claims asserted in the Stone action. Class participants would receive payment based on the number of shifts worked.
Class attorneys are expected to pursue 33 percent of the settlement in compensation for their representation.
In concert with other state jurisdictions and the federal Fair Labor Standards Act, California observes a basket of guidelines that provides non-exempt employees certain rights with regard to rest periods, meal breaks and overtime pay for work performed beyond an eight-hour day, or a 40-hour week.
The wage and hour lawsuit is Muhammed Abdullah et al. v. US Security Associates, Case No. 2:09-cv-09554, in the US District Court for the Central District of California.
California Wage & Hour Lawsuit Against MLB in Rain Delay
Oakland, CA: As the major league baseball season continues to roll along, a wage & hour lawsuit against Major League Baseball brought by minor leaguers over rates of pay and other issues continues to traverse a rocky path akin to the bases loaded in the 9th, with nobody out in a tie game and you’re the team pitching…
Earlier in the proposed class action lawsuit US Chief Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero had denied the plaintiffs’ efforts to secure class action status, suggesting that there were flaws in the plaintiffs’ submission, and that there was insufficient continuity of activity amongst all the proposed class members to warrant status as a class, due to the degree of difficulties involved. The plaintiffs came back with changes to their wage & hour lawsuit, removing claims associated with off-site winter conditioning, amongst other alterations.
Plaintiffs also narrowed the class to include only minor league players in the state of California, making it a California wage and hour lawsuit. Plaintiffs scored a small victory in March, when Judge Spero reversed an earlier decision and agreed to certify the plaintiffs’ claims as a class action, as well as a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
But now everything is in limbo again, as Major League Baseball has appealed the ruling to the Ninth Circuit, with Judge Spero giving the defendants pause to facilitate their appeal.
The proposed class action lawsuit is itself now on pause – call it an extended rain delay – until the appellate panel of the Ninth Circuit has the opportunity to hear the appeal.
It could be a long delay, according to court records and those conversant with the case load of the Ninth Circuit: “Given the state of the Ninth Circuit’s docket,” writes Nathaniel Grow, professor of legal studies at the University of Georgia, “if the circuit court doesn’t expedite the appeal, it could easily take a year and a half or longer just to get an appellate ruling on the class certification issue,” he said. “So instead of looking at a possible trial later this year, you’re probably into 2019, maybe even 2020 before this goes to trial.”
The wage and hour lawsuit was originally filed early in 2014, with minor league ball players claiming, through their wage and hour lawyer, unpaid overtime and wages that did not meet minimum wage standards, or so it has been alleged. Some players assert they collected as little as $1,100 per month in spite of working 200 hours in an average month, or 50 hours in a week.
At issue is a uniform player contract observed by teams in the minor leagues – and plaintiffs assert this has been going on for some time now: the wage and hour class action seeks to represent players having played under the uniform contract dating back to 2010.
Some 2,200 minor league players had opted into the wage and hour lawsuit before it was decertified in 2016. When plaintiffs narrowed their focus, Judge Spero reversed his earlier decision and in March of this year gave the green light to the California wage and hour class and collective action.
But now Major League Baseball – the defendant in the case – wants to appeal and Judge Spero maintains the defendants have the right to do that.
“The court concludes that these questions involve controlling questions of law as to which there is substantial ground for difference of opinion because of the dearth of relevant case law and tension in the relevant legal standards,” the judge said. “Because these questions have crucial implications for whether a collective may be certified in this action, the court concludes that an immediate appeal from its March 7, 2017, order may materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation.”
Major League Baseball and its clubs could suffer ‘significant harm’ depending upon which way the Ninth Circuit rules – and that’s if the Ninth Circuit agrees to hear the appeal at all.
“Should the Ninth Circuit reverse this court’s [order], defendants will suffer substantial harm if this action is not stayed pending appeal as they will have devoted very substantial time and resources on the litigation, particularly with respect to the completion of discovery, dispositive motions and trial preparation on class claims,” the judge said.
For now, the plaintiffs wait in a rain delay…
The case is Aaron Senne et al. v. Office of the Commissioner of Baseball et al., Case No. 3:14-cv-00608, in the US District Court for the Northern District of California.
Nike Hit with California Wage and Hour Lawsuit
San Clemente, CA: Retail giant Nike has been hit with a wage and hour lawsuit based out of California that alleges numerous violations to California wage and hour law, as well as other employment tenets. The most compelling aspect of the lawsuit is the alleged requirement by defendant Nike Retail Services Inc. that store employees, alleged to be earning minimum wage, are required to buy their own uniforms and do so several times in a year.
The lawsuit was filed as a putative class complaint in California Superior Court by Omran Hamid, a resident of the Golden State who worked at a Nike retail outlet in San Clemente from October, 2015 to January of this year. He filed his lawsuit a month later, on February 17.
Hamid accuses Nike of failure to provide itemized wage statements and failure to tell the proposed class the amount of paid sick leave available to them or the amount of paid time off Nike would provide in lieu of sick leave, amongst other alleged wage and hour violations.
The purchase of uniforms, however, constituted the primary issue. Hamid asserts the purchase of uniforms by store employees was not only mandated as a condition of employment by Nike, but that employees were also required to maintain “an up-to-date apparel of each season’s product line,” the wage and hour lawsuit asserts.
“Plaintiffs are minimum wage earners, yet, are required to purchase the uniforms an average of four times a year and on an ongoing basis and pay taxation on their value,” the lawsuit claims, adding that such costs combine to drop an employee’s actual wage below minimum standards observed by state and local statutes, for each pay period in which the uniforms were purchased.
“Plaintiffs are manipulated to become walking advertisements of the store exemplifying the athlete image defendants want to portray to their customers at the expense of requiring plaintiffs to bear the cost of the uniforms,” the complaint asserts.
The putative class action seeks to represent all current and former nonexempt employees who toiled as sales associates at Nike retail locations throughout California over the past four years.
According to court documents, there has been substantial fluidity in the California wage and hour lawsuit over its short life. Within seven days of filing his putative class action, Hamid amended his lawsuit to include no fewer than 14 claims against Nike Retail Services. Those amendments included allegations of illegal terms of employment, and the unlawful collection or receipt of wages due, or so it is alleged.
A little more than a month later, on April 3 Nike petitioned to have the lawsuit removed to federal court. Nike also asserted the wage and hour lawsuit fails to state a cause of action, that the plaintiff lacks standing and that the plaintiff failed to comply with established procedures, and failed to act reasonably to mitigate damages.
The case is Omran Hamid v. Nike Retail Services Inc., Case No. 8:17-cv-00600, in the US District Court for the Central District of California.
Having Once Struck Out, Minor League Players Finally Get to First Base
San Francisco, CA: With spring training underway in southern climes, and the Major League Baseball season about a month away, the timing for certification of a once-rejected wage and hour class action lawsuit seems somewhat appropriate for the time of year, not to mention a source of relief for a collective of minor league players having already faced a rejection of their proposed class action lawsuit.
According to court documents, minor league baseball players filed what was proposed as a class action wage and hour lawsuit in February, 2014. The lawsuit was filed in California. Plaintiffs asserted that minor league players, in deference to the overall wealth of teams and Major League Baseball (MLB) overall, were paid earnings that fell below minimum wage. Plaintiffs alleged that some minor league baseball players earned as little as $1,100 per month during the baseball season, in spite of working upwards of 50 hours in a week. Not only is such a stipend well below minimum wage requirements, it is alleged that no overtime pay was forthcoming for those extra hours in the week, either.
The proposed wage and hour class action was conditionally certified under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) in October, 2015 and no fewer than 2,200 minor league players joined the lawsuit.
However, the momentum didn’t last when the federal judge assigned to the case, US Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero of the US District Court for the Northern District of California, decertified the collective and declined the players’ motion for full certification on grounds that individual experiences by the athletes lacked sufficient commonality to warrant a class. A survey undertaken to estimate the number of hours worked by the proposed class members, was found to be flawed.
That was in July of last year. Undaunted, the players went back to work and, in spite of this occurring in the middle of the baseball season, revised their claim by trimming away physical conditioning that took place during the winter months outside of spring training and the regular season. What complicated the issue was the fact that players, over the winter months, were not required to maintain their conditioning at facilities under the auspices of Major League Baseball, and thus their efforts were not diligently tracked as they would during spring training and the regular season, in facilities within the purview of MLB.
Plaintiffs re-filed their proposed wage and hour lawsuit as a class action in September of last year, and that change allowed Judge Spero to certify the class, in part. “In dropping these claims, they have significantly reduced the variations that led the court to conclude that plaintiffs were attempting to stretch the holding of Tyson Foods too far,” Judge Spero wrote, in reference to the US Supreme Court’s ruling in Tyson Foods v. Bouaphakeo, which held that workers can’t be punished in litigation due to the inability on the part of the employer to keep proper time records. With the initial filing, the judge determined that positions taken by the plaintiffs failed to align with precedents stemming from Tyson v. Bouaphakeo, and thus he couldn’t allow it.
However with revisions, the subsequent filing satisfied, and resolved the legal hurdles. “The remaining variations are not so significant as to preclude a jury from addressing plaintiffs’ claims on a classwide basis,” Judge Spero opined.
Plaintiffs had tightened their bid for class action status to include just three states – Arizona, Florida and California. In the end, Judge Spero found that including the Arizona and Florida classes was problematic given specific provisions of state law, in those two states, that raised different questions for the players involved.
In the end, Judge Spero granted preliminary certification of the wage and hour class action for the state of California. The order covers anyone who participated in California League, spring training, instructional leagues, or extended spring training from February 7, 2011 and who hadn't signed a Major League contract prior to that date.
About . TOS . Privacy . Disclaimer . Contact . Advertise . Member Login
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License ©2026 Online Legal Media. All rights reserved.
Visit other Online Legal Media Websites:
